Baz Luhrmann’s ‘The Great Gatsby’ To Be 3D?

Published 4 years ago by , Updated September 18th, 2012 at 8:00 am,

Baz Luhrmann to shoot The Great Gatsby in 3D Baz Luhrmanns The Great Gatsby To Be 3D?

Excited by the prospect of Baz Luhrmann utilizing his own breed of kinetic editing and eye for colorful visuals to bring what is considered author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s masterpiece, The Great Gatsby, to life? Well it’s possible that the Roaring Twenties will literally jump off the screen in the Moulin Rouge! director’s adaptation.

Luhrmann has been making plans for a cinematic version of Fitgerald’s tragic romance for some time now and is now toying with the prospect of releasing the film in 3D as well (of course).

The Hollywood Reporter caught up with Luhrmann at the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where he, Michael Mann, and Oliver Stone were discussing another increasingly-popular technology – Blu-ray. Luhrmann revealed that he has already workshopped The Great Gatsby in 3D, but is as yet undecided about whether or not he will go ahead and shoot the film in the stereoscopic format as well. However, it does seem that the “post-conversion to 3D” option is off the table for now.

While Great Gatsby is by and large a personal drama that focuses around a small group of characters, it does take place in the world of 1920s America. That was a time and place characterized by unsustainable industrial growth, consumer demand, and flamboyant lifestyles that would in part contribute to the country’s eventual plunge into a crippling depression following the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

The historical setting of Fitzergald’s novel arguably lends itself to Luhrmann’s vibrant and expressive filmmaking style, as well as the atmosphere offered by 3D cinema. But could Luhrmann’s Great Gatsby end up being too full of flair and style – and thus lack the substance of its source material?

The Roaring Twenties will return in Baz Luhrmann's 'The Great Gatsby'.

Word that Carey Mulligan will star in The Great Gatsby broke last November, but there’s not been any additional casting news announced since. Luhrmann is still in the midst of pre-production on the project, but he may be planning to start filming sometime this year, likely the second half of 2011. Expect an official announcement about what format the film will be presented in sooner rather than later.

Would you rather see The Great Gatsby brought to life in 2D or 3D?

Source: The Hollywood Reporter

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I want to see this movie, but 3D? Seriously? 3D is better suited for a big budget blockbuster like AVATAR, not THE GREAT GATSBY.

  2. Possibly the worst idea since Greedo shooting first.

    • lol

  3. I’m with Whatsisname in the hood. Now I’ll admit I haven’t read the novel but just recently viewed the Robert Redford film for the 1st time. I’m going to guess the novel is much better. Sam Waterston was great, Redford was boring and Mia Farrow was irritating.

    I like Luhrman’s work (yes, including Australia) so I would see his version of Gatsby purely out of curiousity. 3D? It’s a laughable thought based only on the 70s version I saw. Filming a tablecloth in 3D seems as interesting and dramatic.

    • That one looked the part and had a great cast, but was a pretty empty experience, and Francis Coppola was publicly unhappy with the way his screenplay was filmed. You’re right about Redford – boring and miscast as Gatsby.

      • Coppola actually took over from Truman Capote whose script was rejected. It has to be tough when the finished project doesn’t reflect what you had imagined or intended.

  4. HORRIBLE Idea. Absolutely NO reason to film and release this in 3D. WTF!

  5. Its more suited for something like Moulin Rouge!, but Gatsby? No.

  6. Wow…really? I’m beginning to wonder about people’s thought process in Hollywood now

    • There is no thought process in Hollywood, all their tiny brains see is dollar signs.

    • Here’s their “thought” process: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  7. This could go either way. I liked what Luhrmann did with Romeo + Juliet, got dragged to Moulin Rouge! by my girlfriend and against my better nature thoroughly enjoyed it. His over-the-top approach plus 3D could capture the recklessness and vacuousness of the period with his theatrical motifs, but needs to be tempered with the intimacy and tragedy of the story.

    Sandy, he’s already workshopped it in 3D? Not sure what that means!

    • @ TBD

      As I understand it, that means Luhrmann has a preliminary plan for making The Great Gatsby in 3D and has discussed the matter with others (ie. his producers, studio execs, etc.), so now they have to determine whether or not shooting in 3D is feasible – and given Luhrmann’s over-the-top approach to filmmaking, it honestly might not be.

      • Newspeak for having had some meetings then! 😀

  8. I’m already bored and confused…

  9. Wait, what? Why?
    3D has no reason to be in this film, in fact the 3D effects would even detract from the color symbolism that was so prevalent in the book and even Luhrmann’s own vibrant style too.

  10. Can we all just take a moment to laugh at just how ridiculous a period film adaptation of one of the most famous books ever written, will look in 3D?…

    No one will take it seriously. Nor should they. What next? Pride And Prejudice 3D?

    • Well, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER is a period piece and it’ll be in 3D 😛

    • I’m not a defender of 3D (quite the opposite), but assuming it’s only applicable to special effects blockbusters is underestimating how prevalent its going to become in the next few years, I reckon. It’s going to be used on more tightly-filmed intimate non-action movies as the “immersive” default setting whether we like it or not, and this is one instance where I can imagine Luhrmann doing a full Busby Berkeley on the party scenes at Gatsby’s mansion, for a start. Does it need 3D? Of course not. But that process will become just another filmmaker’s tool, in time no more remarkable, revolutionary or anachronistic than a tracking shot or the steadicam.

      • I got to disagree, even tho its the new thing right now, 3D is just a fad that will go out in a few years. 3D will eventually be just used in either 2 categories, an epic film (i.e. Avatar) or a gimmic film. So using it on a film like this with absolutely no need, is a waste.

        • I actually hope you’re right, Seth, but I see 3D over the next few years getting pushed at us every which way. It’s an experiment at present and for the time being at least we are the test subjects. James Cameron’s comments on the recent Sanctum thread were interesting: where he was stating that the most effective 3D scenes in Avatar were in fact not the “vistas” or “broad canvas stuff” at all, but the more intimate character scenes (“The more expansive the image, the less you feel in close contact with objects and people and characters and so on”).

          • I can understand that he would say that but I dont see many directors embracing 3D just for upclose, personal shots which to me werent what helped the film (AVATAR), it was seeing the new depth in the world cause it was like you where looking out the window, not at a screen.

      • Unfortuantely, there is only one reason for this happening. And its money. 3D films make more than regualr films, tickets are often double the price.
        3D is not a film making tool, there is never a creative reason for using it (Avatar aside), it’s for making money and thats it.
        How on Earth would Gatsby benefit from being in the third dimension, simple answer; It doesnt, in any way.

        I was kind of looking forward to this, I love the book, its a classic for a good reason, but if it’s really going to be 3D then I will give it a miss at the cinema altogether. It’s bordering on ridiculous.

        • I agree with everything you just said

        • I completely agree with that and your original point. Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that. What I meant was actually the same as your reply to Fenix below: that 3D will become the default format we won’t have a choice about. In order for that to be the case, though, it’ll have to be applied across the board to everything from effects-fests to romcoms, and the point I was making was that it’s a mistake to assume any genre or time period isn’t going to be seen as fair game. Universal application of 3D can and will be justified as a “totally immersive experience”, whether it’s to put you at the controls of a spaceship or in the front seat of Gatsby’s roadster. So in literal terms it is a tool – I meant in terms of technique – and the real motivation behind it’s another matter altogether.

  11. Who cares if this movie is in 3d or not. If it is in 3d I would imagine that a director with half a brain would implement it subtly and not so much in your face as it was with Avatar. They would use the 3d to immerse the viewers into the time period and heck if you wouldn’t like to be immersed in the roaring twenties than its perfectly ok to watch the movie in standard 2d isn’t it? Nobody is putting a gun to your head saying watch this movie in 3d… Regardless of the decision of 3d or not this movie has the potential to be a truly great piece of filmaking. I loved the book as a kid and admit its been a while since I’ve read it but ever since I saw the entourage episode where Vince (adrian grenier) takes the opportunity to play Nick Caraway in Entourages version of the great gatsby, I’ve always wanted this dream to become a reality. Oh but I would rather have Marty Scorsese direct it rather than this guy… at least thats how it was in the show :)

    • Your point has one fatal flaw. When this comes out, do you really think there will be the option of not watching it in 3D?

      Because there wont be. Films that are in 3D are shown in 3D in cinemas because that generates more cash for them, where I live maany cinemas have given up even showing 2D versions of 3D films. Seeing them in 2D is not an option anymore.

      3D has never been about doing anything creative, it was a clever way of nearly doubling ticket prices.

  12. My god, all this 3D seems to put a scar on films for me. I hear a movie title than when followed by 3D it loses merit with me. I really hate movies that push scenes and implement parts just to fill in the movie with 3D

    I can see certain movies being 3D because it fits, but only when the movie is intended to filmed in 3D.

    This classic film with 3D makes it sound silly and childish.

  13. ahh sambeckett your right I didn’t really think about that, good point. I guess i just assumed that some theaters would offer the option to watch it in standard 2d but now that I think about it I don’t think any theaters around here do that. But I agree… 3d is being exploited by the studios to garner more cash. It could truly ruin a film like this which is based on such excellent source material. It’s a shame but who knows like I said before, I think it could be subtly used in a film like this to great effect. the key word being subtle.